The
conflict issue in this case is whether section 782.065,
Florida Statutes (2013), [1] creates a substantive criminal offense
of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer that
includes as an essential element that the defendant knew that
the victim was a law enforcement officer. In Ramroop v.
State, 174 So.3d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), the Fifth
District Court of Appeal held that section 782.065, titled
"Murder; law enforcement officer, correctional officer,
correctional probation officer, " requires knowledge but
is a reclassification statute that "in and of itself, is
not a substantive crime." Id. at 598.
Gangapersad Ramroop, who received two life sentences,
including a mandatory life sentence for attempted
second-degree murder of a law enforcement officer, seeks
review of the Fifth District's decision on the ground
that it expressly and directly conflicts with this
Court's decisions in Wright v. State, 586 So.2d
1024 (Fla. 1991), and State v. Darst, 837 So.2d 394
(Fla. 2002), on whether the crime of attempted murder of a
law enforcement officer constitutes a substantive criminal
offense. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, §
3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

The
Fifth District correctly concluded that the jury instructions
in Ramroop's trial were erroneous by not requiring the
jury to find that Ramroop knew that the victim was a
law enforcement officer because knowledge is an essential
element of the crime defined by section 782.065. However, the
Fifth District incorrectly determined that section 782.065 is
a reclassification statute that does not create a separate
substantive offense. We conclude that section 782.065 is a
reclassification statute that creates a substantive offense
and, therefore, the proper remedy for the erroneous jury
instructions in Ramroop's case would have been to vacate
both Ramroop's convictions-attempted second-degree murder
of a law enforcement officer and first-degree felony murder
of another victim, which was based on the attempted
second-degree murder conviction-and remand for a new trial.
Because the Fifth District incorrectly determined that
section 782.065 does not create a separate substantive
offense, it improperly remanded Ramroop's case for
resentencing on the lesser-included offense of attempted
second-degree murder instead of ordering a new trial.
Id. at 599. In doing so, the Fifth District left
intact the conviction of first-degree felony murder of a
separate victim, for which a life sentence was also imposed.
Id. Accordingly, we quash the Fifth District's
decision to the extent that it held that section 782.065 does
not create a substantive offense and remand with directions
to order a new trial on the charges of attempted
second-degree murder of a law enforcement officer and
first-degree felony murder.[2]

BACKGROUND

The
Fifth District explained the facts underlying Ramroop's
convictions as follows:

During the early morning hours of July 4, 2013, several
officers of the Orlando Police Department attempted to pull
over Ramroop's vehicle for a traffic violation. A chase
ensued, whereupon Ramroop ran several red lights, and
allegedly shot at one of the officers involved in the
pursuit, Officer Christopher Brillant. Ramroop ultimately
struck another vehicle in an intersection, causing the death
of the driver of that vehicle, Robert Charles John Hunter.
Hunter was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash,
and his body was ejected from the vehicle onto the pavement.
Ramroop was apprehended at the scene of the crash and
subsequently charged by information with (1) attempted
first-degree murder of an officer engaged in the lawful
performance of a legal duty and (2) knowingly discharging a
firearm from a vehicle within 1000 feet of a person. Ramroop
was also separately indicted for first-degree murder of
Hunter.

Ramroop, 174 So.3d at 587.

A grand
jury indicted Ramroop of first-degree murder for unlawfully
killing Robert Charles John Hunter "while engaged in the
perpetration of an attempt to murder [Officer Brillant] or
while escaping from the immediate scene of an attempt[] to
murder [Brillant]" in violation of section
782.04(1)(a)(2). Ramroop was separately charged by
information with attempted first-degree murder of a law
enforcement officer in violation of sections 782.04(1)(a)(1),
777.04, 782.065, 775.087(1), 775.087(2), and 775.0823,
Florida Statutes. The information alleged that the crime of
attempted first-degree murder arose from a "premeditated
design to effect the death of Christopher Brilliant [sic],
attempt to murder Christopher Brilliant [sic], by shooting a
gun at Christopher Brilliant [sic] thus creating in the mind
of Christopher Brilliant [sic] a well founded fear that
violence was about to take place, while Christopher Brilliant
[sic], a law enforcement officer for the Orlando Police
Department, was engaged in the lawful performance of a legal
duty; to-wit: enforcement of the traffic laws."

At
trial, the special verdict form as to the indictment listed
the following offenses:

___ WE, THE JURY, find the Defendant, guilty of First Degree
Murder, as charged in the Indictment.

___ WE, THE JURY, find the Defendant, guilty of the lesser
included offense of Manslaughter.

___ WE, THE JURY, find the Defendant, not guilty.

The
special verdict form as to Count 1 of the information listed
the following offenses:

___ WE, THE JURY, find the Defendant, guilty of Attempted
First Degree Murder, as charged in the Information.

___ WE, THE JURY, find the Defendant, guilty of the lesser
included offense of Attempted Second Degree Murder.

___ WE, THE JURY, find the Defendant, guilty of the lesser
included offense of Attempted Voluntary Manslaughter.

___ WE, THE JURY, find the Defendant, guilty of the lesser
included offense of Aggravated Assault on a Law Enforcement
Officer.

___ WE, THE JURY, find the Defendant, guilty of the lesser
included offense of Assault.

___ WE, THE JURY, find the Defendant, not guilty.

(Emphasis added.) The jury convicted Ramroop of the
first-degree felony murder of Hunter and the lesser-included
offense of attempted second-degree murder of a law
enforcement officer, which served as the underlying felony
for the conviction of first-degree felony murder.

As to
section 782.065, the verdict form reflects that the jury made
a special finding "that [the victim] was at the time of
the offense a police officer for the City of Orlando in the
lawful execution of his legal duties." On appeal, the
Fifth District found that "the jury instruction
pertaining to the jury's special finding that the victim
was a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of
his duties at the time of the offense failed to also require
the jury to find that Ramroop had knowledge of the
victim's status." Ramroop, 174 So.3d at
586. However, the Fifth District concluded that because
section 782.065 is a reclassification statute that does not
create a separate substantive offense, but rather
"operates solely to reclassify . . . offenses committed
against law enforcement officers, " reversing
Ramroop's conviction of first-degree felony murder was
unnecessary, and the proper remedy for the erroneous jury
instructions was to vacate the jury's special finding and
remand Ramroop's case for resentencing on the
lesser-included offense of attempted second-degree murder
without reclassification. Ramroop, 174 So.3d at
598-99.

ANALYSIS

The
issue before us is whether section 782.065 creates a separate
substantive offense. Because this is a pure question of law,
our review is de novo. See Haygood v. State, 109
So.3d 735, 739 (Fla. 2013).

The
United States Supreme Court made clear in Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the Sixth Amendment to
the United States Constitution guarantees each criminal
defendant the right "to 'a jury determination [of
guilt on] every element of the crime with which he is
charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.' " Id.
at 476-77 (quoting United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S.
506, 510 (1995)) (citations omitted). This principle guides
our analysis.

ss. 775.082, 775.0823, 782.04, 782.051, and chapter 921, a
defendant shall be sentenced to life imprisonment without
eligibility for release upon findings by the trier of ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.